October 29, 2009 | 12:05 pm
The “birthers” lose, again.
This morning, a U.S. District Court Judge in Santa Ana dismissed a federal lawsuit challenging President Obama’s election on the grounds he wasn’t born in the U.S.
In his opinion, Judge David O. Carter stated that it is not within the constitutional power of the federal courts to “overthrow a sitting president.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champane Flight
Either the judge is a coward or stupid or on Obama's pay roll. To find out if Obama is a natural born citizen or not natural born citizen is not “overthrow a sitting president.” If Obama is a natural born citizen then he is president and is not being removed. If Obama is not a natural born citizen he is not President and can not be removed because he never was president.
If Obama remains president with out a birth certificate and several years we find out he is not a natural born citizen, do we lock him up for years or shot him as a traitor. Or do we just let him go and say the constitution never meant anything and our for-fathers were stupid to die for it?
|
The case, brought forward by California attorney Orly Taitz, a leader of the so-called “birther” movement, claims that Obama doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications to be president because he has not shown he is a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.
Obama has produced a birth certificate from Hawaii, but Taitz claims there is evidence he was born in Kenya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champane Flight
This is a lie and you know it and so do they. What Obama produced, if it is the document shown on the internet, is not a birth certificate. I have shown you what a real birth certificate looks like and that is not it.
|
This case has failed to advance beyond several lower courts. Taitz was also fined $20,000 on Oct. 13 by a federal judge in Columbus, Georgia in part because Taitz had used the legal system to pursue “political rhetoric and insults,” the judge in that case stated.
In the most recent case, Carter wrote in his opinion how “plaintiffs have attacked” anyone who has dismissed their claim as “unpatriotic and even treasonous.”
“Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic," he said. "Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”